Are the recommondations on a Periodic test correct.

[danrich123]

My mum had a periodic test done at a property she rents out and it has come back with a number of observations and recommendations on it (along with a bill to put it right). Shes asked me to check it over for her. I think theyre wrong with what theyve put but if you can let me know either way.
One point is there is no RCD on the consumer unit - but as the install is around 10 years or so old it wasn't relevent so i dont think it means an observation at all never mind a code 2 (so they say it definatly needs new CU)
no warning labels regarding old wiring code 3 - but the entire install is in black and red so isnt needed in my opinion.
no mains powered smoke alarms code 2 - there are battery powered ones.
Also the bill is £800 for new CU and smokes which i think is laughable. Are they just trying to get some unnecssary work done out of my mum.

Also I was on a job recently and the supply fuses were rewireable ones for both the live and neutral. Also the earth was on an earth clamp on the armour coming in. I belive this is not good, but should this definatly need to be changed and is it the responsibilty of the owner.

Thanks

 

[ricicle]

10 years ago RCDs would have been a requirement for sockets expected to supply portable equipment outdoors - code 2.
No warning labels required if all the colours are R/B

Not sure on the smoke alarm issue - more of a building requirement than IEE regulations.

 

[SparkyNinja]

If your mum rents out the property, then she should have RCD's installed. It will always fail without them. But this doesn't necessary mean a new CU
A 2 colour warning labels isn't needed if there are not two or more versions of colour. If there are, and there is no label then this is a code 4. It would never be a code 3.
Smoke alarms are not necessary for code 2. If the proerty is refurbished or new then they should be installed with an interlinking cable, I see no reason for smoke alarms to be mentioned unless it relates to the property being let? But that would still be advisory only.

£800 depends on the extent on the work and the site fabric. Although it does seem a little steep.

It does look like they are trying to get some work.. have they discussed the different options that your mum has?


As for the other job, it sounds like the electricity supplier needs to update the intake of the installation.. or is it a submain?

 

[Taylortwocities]

You dont say what the property is but I'll assume its a house?
10 years ago the 16th edition of the wiring regs was in force so all of the sockets downstairs should be on an RCD (ie those that could be used to power portable equipment outdoors).
They could fit an RCBO on that circuit to comply.

If they change the CU then it will have to comply with the new (17th edition) regs & can get pricey depending on the state of the installation.

Code 3 re warning labels - are you sure that there has been absolutely no fixed wiring alterations/additions in the new colours? Even so, that sign is pence.

The fitting of smoke alarms is not a wiring regulations requirement. The term 'smoke alarm' is not even defined in BS7671.
Personally I would fit mains smokes with battery back up and it may be a requirment for letting or building regs but the report should only be concerned with the installation's adherence to BS7671.

 

[ricicle]

You dont say what the property is but I'll assume its a house?
10 years ago the 16th edition of the wiring regs was in force so all of the sockets downstairs should be on an RCD (ie those that could be used to power portable equipment outdoors).
They could fit an RCBO on that circuit to comply.

If they change the CU then it will have to comply with the new (17th edition) regs & can get pricey depending on the state of the installation.

Code 3 re warning labels - are you sure that there has been absolutely no fixed wiring alterations/additions in the new colours? Even so, that sign is pence.

The fitting of smoke alarms is not a wiring regulations requirement. The term 'smoke alarm' is not even defined in BS7671.
Personally I would fit mains smokes with battery back up and it may be a requirment for letting or building regs but the report should only be concerned with the installation's adherence to BS7671.

Touche

 

[danrich123]

Thanks for replys,

The install i think is from around 1995 so is before 16th i think.
But when you do a periodic i thought that you had to test to what the regs were in place when the wiring was installed. And then recommend via code 4 for 17th edition noncompliance. Regarding letting/building regs, I would of thought this would have no baring on a periodic test as that just deals with wiring regs?

Also how easy is it to get the electrical supplier to change the supply?

Thanks

 

[danrich123]

when did the 16th edition regs come out?

 

[Adam_151]

The install i think is from around 1995 so is before 16th i think.

Nope, 16th came out in early 1990s, 1991/92 I think

But when you do a periodic i thought that you had to test to what the regs were in place when the wiring was installed.

No, the installation is assessed to current standards, otherwise we'd have to pass whatever primitive unsafe equipment they used in 1882...

[/quote]

 

[sparkyspike]

when did the 16th edition regs come out?

1991

 

[RF Lighting]

You are sort of correct.

You do a periodic to the current edition of BS7671.

If you found an installation done to a previous standard, it is not utomatically a code 4. It depends on what the deviation is.

Things such as the abscence of RCD protection for cables buried below 50mm in a wall would only warrant a code 4, but something such as relying on a water pipe as a main earth would score higher. (This was allowed in a previous edition of the regs)

A PIR is only concerened with the installations compliance with BS7671. It may be that the inspector notices a lack of emergency lighting or smoke alarms as part of the inspection. This may be mentioned in the periodic, but can not be given a code.


There is much more here

It gets interesting around page 11

Also how easy is it to get the electrical supplier to change the supply?

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by this. Can you give some more info?

 

[danrich123]

No, the installation is assessed to current standards, otherwise we'd have to pass whatever primitive unsafe equipment they used in 1882...

I see.

So even though the install looks like its in good shape it could not be passed satifactory until it had RCD's for example.

But does that not mean though that any house you go in now with an install from before 2008 will almost always fail as it does not comply with 17th regs.

 

[sparkyspike]

Also how easy is it to get the electrical supplier to change the supply?

Give them a call.

If you have a high Ze reading they will come out as an emergency.

 

[danrich123]

Quote:
Also how easy is it to get the electrical supplier to change the supply?


I'm not sure what exactly you mean by this. Can you give some more info?

I'm just wondering how easy it is to get a supply with fused live and neutral changed for a newer one with cartridge fuse and no fuse on neutral

Also who would i ring? EON?

 

[RF Lighting]

Do you mean you have a cast iron cutout?

What makes you think you have a fused neutral? They are pretty rare these days, and AFAIK, they have not been installed for about the last 70 odd years.

How often does the fuse in the existing cutout blow?

 

[Adam_151]

So even though the install looks like its in good shape it could not be passed satifactory until it had RCD's for example.

It depends...not necessarily, if it had sockets which could reasonably be expected to supply portable equipment outside of the equipotential zone, then that would be a code two recommendation and be unsatifactory, if it was missing an RCD on concealed cabling then that would be a code 4, and wouldn't on its own make the install unsatifactory

But does that not mean though that any house you go in now with an install from before 2008 will almost always fail as it does not comply with 17th regs.

No, a house which if tested to the 16th would not receive any observations (I'm not sure this exists!) would only receive code 4 observations on a PIR correctly carried out to the 17th edition